Law & Economics Flashcards
L1 - What is tort law?
A civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits a tortious act.
It fills a gap in the legal system a victim cannot use contract or property law to sue when there is no breach of contract, no damage to property or no continuing harm.
L1 - Tort Law- What three liabilities do we use to access for care incentives in unilateral care?
- No Liability
- Strict Liability
- Negligence Liability.
L1 - Tort Law - Unilateral Care?
When the other party couldn’t have prevented the accident.
L1 - Tort Law - Bilateral Care?
When the other party could have done something to prevent an accident - e.g. swerving their car to avoid a crash.
L1 - Tort Law - What does Bilateral Care include?
Contributory and comparative negligence.
L1 - Tort Law - What are the two other main bodies of law?
Property Law and Contract Law.
L1 - Tort Law - Where are the routes of the word Tort from?
Tort means “law -French” and is derived from the Latin word “tortus” meaning “twisted”.
L1 - Tort Law - What is the economic purpose of tort liability?
Tort laws use of liability to internalise externalities created by high transaction costs (relative to the chance of injury), which is done by having the injurer compensate the victim.
L1 - Tort Law - What are the three elements the must be present for recovery by the plaintiff under the traditional theory of torts?
- The plaintiff must have suffered HARM.
- The defendant’s act or failure to act must CAUSE THE HARM; and
- The defendants act or failure to act must constitute the BREACH OF A DUTY OWED to the plaintiff by the defendant.
L1 - Tort Law - How do we separate the harm aspect of tort law?
Simple Definition of main word?
- Pecuniary Losses.
- Non-pecuniary Losses.
Pecuniary: relating to or consisting of money.
L1 - Tort Law - Pecuniary Losses?
How easy are they to calculate and what are some examples?
AKA ‘specific damages’.
Easier to calculate as there are records of losses. Examples include: lost earnings, damaged car, medical expenses.
L1 - Tort Law- Non-Pecuniary Losses?
How easy are they to calculate and what are some examples?
AKA ‘general damages’ or ‘pain, suffering and loss of amenity’ - PSLA.
Harder to calculate because the harm is subjective. Judicial guidelines are published to help and draw on case law to provide a guideline.
Examples include: Pain, suffering or loss of ability to enjoy life or undertake everyday tasks, loss of congenial employment, reduced labour market prospects or reduced marriage prospects.
Amenity?
A desirable or useful feature or facility of a building or place: the property is situated in a convenient location, close to all local amenities.
Congenial?
Pleasing or liked on account of having qualities or interests that are similar to one’s own.
L1 - Tort Law - Harm?
Overview.
Divided into pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses.
Judiciary guides are published to assist.
L1 - Tort Law - But-for test?
How does it link in with the “cause-in-fact”?
Used to establish whether the cause aspect of tort law is satisfied.
But for action A, would event B have occurred.
If No, A is the cause-in-fact.
L1 - Tort Law - CAUSE of harm?
What is the main test
Used to decide whether one action or inaction has caused another. The defendant must have caused the plaintiffs harm.
Two types of cases are distinguished by the law:
- The cause in fact (using the but for test)
- The primate cause.
The action must be the the cause and effect, and the proximate cause.
L1 - Tort Law - Criticism of the But for test and Cause and fact?
The But-for test allows distant causes to have the same weight as proximate causes. e.g. If someone hit someone and broke their nose, the cause and fact of the injury would be the fist, but it would also be the fact that the defendant was born.
The but-for test therefore does not discriminate between the proximate cause and the remote cause.
L1 - Tort Law - PSLA
Pain suffering and loss amenity.
L1 - Tort Law - Barnet v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital (1969)
Used to show the use of the “But-for” test.
Barnet went into hospital complaining of vomiting and stomach pains. The nurse called the doctor on duty who advised Barnet to see
the GP in the morning. Barnet died five hours later from arsenic, before seeing the GP. His family sued, claiming that the hospital’s decision not to examine him when he presented at
hospital had caused his death, but the court held that the hospital had not caused the death because no treatment would have saved Barnet from the arsenic poisoning – i.e. would the
result have occurred but for the act of omission by the hospital? (The court felt the answer to this was “Yes”.)
L1 - Tort Law - What case would we reference when looking at proximity and causation?
Describe the case.
Palsgraf vs Long Island Railway Co. (1928).
Plaintiff [Mrs. Palsgraf] was standing on a platform of defendant’s railroad after buying a ticket to go to Rockaway Beach. A train stopped at the station, bound for another place. Two men ran forward to catch it. One of the men reached the platform of the car without mishap, though the train was already moving. The other man, carrying a package,
jumped aboard the car, but seemed unsteady as if about to fall. A guard on the car,
who had held the door open, reached forward to help him in, and another guard on the
platform pushed him from behind. In this act, the package was dislodged, and fell upon the rails. It was a package of small size, about fifteen inches long, and was covered by a newspaper. In fact it contained fireworks, but there was nothing in its appearance to give notice of its contents. The fireworks when they fell exploded. The shock of the explosion threw down some scales at the other end of the platform many feet away. The
scales struck the plaintiff, causing injuries for which she sues.
The New York court determined that the railroad was not liable for Mrs. Palsgraf’s injuries because the railroad guard’s actions in pushing the passenger were too remote in the chain of causes to be deemed the legal cause of the plaintiff’s harm.
L1 - Tort Law - Define Duty of Care?
The duty to take REASONABLE CARE when performing acts that could FORESEEABLEY harm others.
L1 - Tort Law - Duty of Care and the liability rules?
Overview.
Not all rules in tort law impose a duty of care on the parties. e.g. strict liability.
L1 - Tort Law - How does strict liability differ from no liability or negligence liability and what does it generally apply to?
Strict liability only relies on harm and proximate cause, not the third element of breach of duty.
It generally applies “abnormally dangerous activities” such as blasting with dynamite.
L1 - Tort Law - What is said of an injurer if they break legal duty?
They are “at fault” or have been “negligent”
L1 - Tort Law - A negligence rule?
A rule of liability requiring the plaintiff to prove harm, causation and fault. The defendant escapes liability if they applied the standard care to avoid harm that they caused.
L1 - Tort Law - How do we evaluate the duty of care rule?
Duty of care is represented by a continuous variable, as we often have to surpass a level in order to be negligent, and multiple factors can contribute towards this.
We set the precaution equal to x’. LHS is negligent and RHS is not-negligent.
L1 - Tort Law - How is duty of care determined by the law?
- Regulation and Laws - e.g. speed limits, safety helmets.
- Case Law - Unites States v Carroll Towing Co (1947)
- Social Norms and Customs - ‘mirror, signalling and manoeuvre’, accepted medical protocol.
Note: These can often evolve into laws, such as thbolarm test in clinical negligence cases.
L1 - Tort Law - United States Vs Carrol Towing case.
What is this an example of?
The case concerned the loss of a barge and its cargo in New York Harbor. A
number of barges were secured by a single mooring line to several piers. The defendant’s tug was hired to take one of the barges out of the harbor. In order to release the barge, the crew of the defendant’s tug, finding no one aboard in any of the barges, readjusted the mooring lines. The adjustment was not done properly, with the result
that one of the barges later broke loose, collided with another ship, and sank with its cargo. The owner of the sunken barge sued the owner of the tug, claiming that the tug owner’s employees were negligent in readjusting the mooring lines. The tug owner
replied that the barge owner was also negligent because his agent, called a “bargee,”
was not on the barge when the tug’s crew sought to adjust the mooring lines. The
bargee could have assured that the tug’s crew adjusted the mooring lines correctly.
The plaintiff was found negligent for not having a bargee aboard during the working hours of daylight.
This is an example of case law that can be used to establish reasonable care.
L1 - Tort Law - Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957)
Bolam suffered fractures while receiving electro-convulsive therapy (ECT). He claimed damages for negligent care on the grounds that (i) no muscle relaxant had been administered; (b) he was not restrained during the procedure; and (c) he had not been warned of the risks.
The claim failed because the court accepted that none of (a)-(c) was inconsistent with
accepted medical protocol and, as such, Bolam’s medical team had not breached their duty
of care towards him. As a result of this case, it is possible for a medic/team to avoid negligence liability if s/he/it can show that a responsible body of medical professionals in the
same field would regard the care in question as acceptable – this is the ‘Bolam test’.
L1 - Tort Law - Bolam Test?
It is possible for a medic/team to avoid negligence liability if she/he/it can show that a responsible body of medical professionals in the
same field would regard the care in question as acceptable.
L1 - Tort Law - Economic Theory of Tort Law Model - SC, w, x, p(x) & A?
How does p(x) change with increases in x?
SC: Social Cost
w: cost of precaution (care) per unit
x: precaution (i.e. the injurers care)
p(x): probability of an accident given care. It is a decreasing function of x, as the more care you give, the less effective it is.
A: Monetary cost of harm (e.g. medical costs, damage etc).
A precaution (x) increases, p(x) decreases.
Ap(x) is expected harm in dollars.
wx is the total amount spent on precaution.
L1 - Tort Law - Economic Theory of Tort Law Model - What is the Social Care formula and what do the composite parts intuitively represent?
What is the only diminishing part of the function?
SC = wx + p(x)A
wx is the total amount spent on precaution.
p(x)A is expected harm in dollars.
More care lowers the probability of an incident but we have a diminishing returns to care.
L1 - Tort Law - Economic Theory of Tort Law Model - What does the Unilateral Social Care graph look like?
What is the point minimises the expected social costs?
Brainscape Companion 1.
L1 - Tort Law - Economic Theory of Tort Law Model - Given the Social Cost function, SC = wx + p(x)A, how do we solve to attain x*, the lowest social cost?
Social optimal care solves:
(1) min wx + p(x)A
(2) FOC of